Teen Banned From US For Barracking Obama

Radiation said:
The idea that people can't travel freely is surely highly questionable and absurd when you think about it?
Click to expand...

Because we are no longer nomadic hunter gatherers and there are all these social things that people expect to be paid for the whole "wander whereever you want" ends up being somewhat of an idealistic dream.

Radiation said:
There are many human created systems and rules that go against true freedom, borders are just one of them, people have the natural right to travel where they like and i don't see how one group can tell another they can't.
Click to expand...

In a word, tough luck. Until all nations have parity on services, resources and freedoms then things such as borders will exist. As for "natural right" in nature the only rights you have are the ones you can enforce.
 
PanMaster said:
Agreed. It's the last place in world I'll ever visit. A country full of hypocrits and murderers.
Click to expand...

It's one of the most fantastic countries in the entire world. You are missing out if you don't visit here. In the last week alone I've seen more beautiful natural sights in one corner of it than the entire UK has to offer.

Anyway, I'm off to Laguna Seca now, then I'm going to drive down Highway 1 past Big Sur. I'll try and dodge the murderers.
 
Radiation said:
The idea that people can't travel freely is surely highly questionable and absurd when you think about it?

There are many human created systems and rules that go against true freedom, borders are just one of them, people have the natural right to travel where they like and i don't see how one group can tell another they can't.
Click to expand...

Maybe because if there was true freedom for people to live where they wanted, with no rules and no enforcement or border, we'd have terrorists in the country, so much immigration and over population, you'd not have room to breath, and several countries would probably have the combined population to just about fill a car.
 
RDM said:
Because we are no longer nomadic hunter gatherers and there are all these social things that people expect to be paid for the whole "wander whereever you want" ends up being somewhat of an idealistic dream.

In a word, tough luck. Until all nations have parity on services, resources and freedoms then things such as borders will exist. As for "natural right" in nature the only rights you have are the ones you can enforce.
Click to expand...

Thats irrelevant, just because a large group of humans agree on something and can enforced what they like through kidnapping, prison and human rights abuse, that doesn't make it right does it?
 
people have the natural right to travel where they like and i don't see how one group can tell another they can't.
Click to expand...

No they don't.


There is nothing "natural" about rights.

Especially to movement of all things, even the lowest of creatures, hell even certain fungi could be described as territorial.


Rights are a purely human created system that goes against true freedom.
 
Radiation said:
Thats irrelevant, just because a large group of humans agree on something and can enforced what they like through kidnapping, prison and human rights abuse, that doesn't make it right does it?
Click to expand...

They guy has been told he cannot enter the US. He has not been kidnapped, sent to prison or had his human rights abused (you do not have the human right to enter the US). So I am not sure where you are coming from with that.

There are some pretty obvious reasons why total freedom of movement is not a good idea, especially for those of us lucky enough to actually enjoy a decent standard of living.
 
Radiation said:
Thats irrelevant, just because a large group of humans agree on something and can enforced what they like through kidnapping, prison and human rights abuse, that doesn't make it right does it?
Click to expand...

Okay. So I want to live at your house from now on. I have the right to enter, you don't have any right what so ever to refuse me from staying there for the next few months?

Exactly. Of course I don't. A shop can ban you from entering if you're trouble. A person can say "no, you're not coming into my home". And a country can say "you're not entering".

The reasons don't matter, fact of the matter is, it's not your 'right' to go anywhere in another country. It's a nice perk they offer for the UK and other countries that we don't need a visa to enter, they're actually being nice about that. If they feel they don't want someone in the country, too bad on him.

And once again, if a 1000 terrorists, murderes, child slave ring owners came to the country tomorrow and demanded to be let in "just 'cause I've got the right lolz" would you say that's a great idea?

No, of course not. Any country has the right to let in (or deny entry) for who it wants, and this goes for immigration to live, for a holiday, or to drop off a letter to your uncle barney who is waiting for you just outside the airport, it'll take you 3 seconds and then you'll be heading right back.
 
Tefal said:
No they don't.

There is nothing "natural" about rights.

Especially to movement of all things, even the lowest of creatures, hell even certain fungi could be described as territorial.

Rights are a purely human created system that goes against true freedom.
Click to expand...

You can argue the point all you like but natural rights exist to every individual life from, which im sure they would agree they have if they understood it, i doubt theres a single human who would disagree they have certain natural rights to exist and move freely, its called the freedom of choice, as long as you don't interfere with anothers freedom of choice directly or indirectly then you're free to do what you like.

RDM said:
They guy has been told he cannot enter the US. He has not been kidnapped, sent to prison or had his human rights abused (you do not have the human right to enter the US). So I am not sure where you are coming from with that.

There are some pretty obvious reasons why total freedom of movement is not a good idea, especially for those of us lucky enough to actually enjoy a decent standard of living.
Click to expand...

Im talking in general for all humans.
 
Radiation said:
You can argue the point all you like but natural rights exist to every individual life from, which im sure they would agree they have if they understood it, i doubt theres a single human who would disagree they have certain natural rights to exist and move freely, its called the freedom of choice, as long as you don't interfere with anothers freedom of choice directly or indirectly then you're free to do what you like.



Im talking in general for all humans.
Click to expand...

Yes. Freedom of choice. They've got the freedom (as we do) to not let someone in. See how that works?

He had freedom of choice to not clown around, (I won't go into if he 'deserved' a ban or not as that's not relevant to your argument) but he chose to, and now has to deal with it.

If I go to the United States tomorrow, slap a policeman upside the head, do I expect it to go well for me? Of course not, and I damn well shouldn't either.

If you've got freedom, you've got to use it responsibly. And others can use theirs to not let you in. Just as if you don't want Dan down the road into your house because you know TV's and PC's have a habit of going missing when people let him into your house. You're not going to let him in because he believes you're stopping his freedom! :p
 
Loving the irony of people operating a construction of plastic & metal to electronically send messages about what is and is not natural to hundreds of people potentially thousands of miles away virtually instantly.
 
Deadbeat said:
Loving the irony of people operating a construction of plastic & metal to electronically send messages about what is and is not natural to hundreds of people potentially thousands of miles away virtually instantly.
Click to expand...

It's my right too!

I don't take kindly you telling me what's irony or not! :mad::mad::mad::mad:

:D:p;)
 
Dark_Angel said:
Yes. Freedom of choice. They've got the freedom (as we do) to not let someone in. See how that works?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't work like that, by enforcing their choice they're interfearing with anothers freedom of choice.

He had freedom of choice to not clown around, (I won't go into if he 'deserved' a ban or not as that's not relevant to your argument) but he chose to, and now has to deal with it.
Click to expand...

Like me shouting at someone, until something happens to that person i have every right to make sounds, sending electronic communication that causes no loss or harm and isn't interfering with someones rights means he's hasn't done anything wrong to affect his freedom of choice.

If I go to the United States tomorrow, slap a policeman upside the head, do I expect it to go well for me? Of course not, and I damn well shouldn't either.

If you've got freedom, you've got to use it responsibly. And others can use theirs to not let you in. Just as if you don't want Dan down the road into your house because you know TV's and PC's have a habit of going missing when people let him into your house. You're not going to let him in because he believes you're stopping his freedom! :p
Click to expand...

Slapping someone is interfering with their rights and caused harm, stealing someones property is causing loss, its not hard to see why your example is flawed and my point still stands.

Tefal said:
Who are you to force rights and restrictions upon all life?

so all territorial animals have no right to their territory?
Click to expand...

Im not forcing anything on anyone and am actually being the most reasonable here, if someone wishes to submit their freedom to another thats their choice, if an animal wishes to move in the same area as another its their choice as long as no harm or loss is caused as doing so will invalidate their freedom of choice in equal measure temporarily.
 
Radiation said:
No it doesn't work like that, by enforcing their choice they're interfearing with anothers freedom of choice.



Like me shouting at someone, until something happens to that person i have every right to make sounds, sending electronic communication that causes no loss or harm and isn't interfering with someones rights means he's hasn't done anything wrong to affect his freedom of choice.



Slapping someone is interfering with their rights and caused harm, stealing someones property is causing loss, its not hard to see why your example is flawed and my point still stands.



Im not forcing anything on anyone and am actually being the most reasonable here, if someone wishes to submit their freedom to another thats their choice, if an animal wishes to move in the same area as another its their choice as long as no harm or loss is caused as doing so will invalidate their freedom of choice in equal measure temporarily.
Click to expand...

I'm speechless you can argue and believe you're right that a country doesn't have a right to deny someone in.

There's little more to be said. If you can't understand that it's a human right to say "no, I don't feel you should be in my home" (and a country is a home) then... just... :( really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom